IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11180-d908793.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green Software Process Factors: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Siti Rohana Ahmad Ibrahim

    (Centre for Software Technology and Management, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Jamaiah Yahaya

    (Centre for Software Technology and Management, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Hasimi Sallehudin

    (Centre for Software Technology and Management, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia)

Abstract

In the twenty-first century, the use of software is growing due to many applications requiring large and complex software. Many people do not realise that the use of software has influenced the operation of computer hardware to move indirectly as it affects the hardware’s energy consumption and carbon emissions. Previous studies focused more on models and tools to measure the impact of power consumption and energy efficiency from hardware than on software development studies. Energy consumption can be optimised by the greening software process throughout all phases of development activity. Besides, the current green software process models are more focused on environmental and economic elements and do not integrate with the waste elements in the development phase. Integrating sustainability and waste elements is essential to ensure that the development process complies with green process standards. A qualitative method is used through interviews involving eight informants from Malaysia’s public and private sectors. The objectives of the empirical study are to reveal the current practices of the green software process in industry, identify software process waste and determine green factors associated with the software process. The analysis is guided by a thematic approach using Atlas.ti 8 software. This paper describes the results from the qualitative study that consists of three main themes: best practices of a software process, nine software wastes (building the wrong feature, rework, unnecessarily complex solutions, extraneous cognitive load, psychological distress, waiting, knowledge loss, ineffective communication, delay), and six green factors (resources, people, organisational, technical, environmental, technology). The analysis findings indicate that the software industry needs elements of best practices, green practices, and software technologies in each development phase to produce a green and sustainable software process. The advancement of computing today presents technology as an essential factor in green elements to ensure that the software process is constantly updated and always green.

Suggested Citation

  • Siti Rohana Ahmad Ibrahim & Jamaiah Yahaya & Hasimi Sallehudin, 2022. "Green Software Process Factors: A Qualitative Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-26, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11180-:d:908793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11180/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11180/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zlatko Nedelko & Vojko Potocan, 2021. "Sustainability of Organizations: The Contribution of Personal Values to Democratic Leadership Behavior Focused on the Sustainability of Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, April.
    2. Hennink, Monique & Kaiser, Bonnie N., 2022. "Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    3. repec:ibf:rbfstu:v:8:y:2017:i:1:p:77-84 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ghisetti, Claudia & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Green Technologies and Environmental Productivity: A Cross-sectoral Analysis of Direct and Indirect Effects in Italian Regions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1-13.
    5. Shola Oyedeji & Ahmed Seffah & Birgit Penzenstadler, 2018. "A Catalogue Supporting Software Sustainability Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-30, July.
    6. Mitch Kramer, 2018. "Best Practices In Systems Development Lifecycle: An Analyses Based On The Waterfall Model," Review of Business and Finance Studies, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 9(1), pages 77-84.
    7. Navarro Ferronato & Vincenzo Torretta, 2019. "Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-28, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gülüm Özer & İdil Işık & Jordi Escartín, 2024. "Is There Somebody Looking out for Me? A Qualitative Analysis of Bullying Experiences of Individuals Diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(2), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Jinqiu He & Huiwen Su, 2022. "Digital Transformation and Green Innovation of Chinese Firms: The Moderating Role of Regulatory Pressure and International Opportunities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Ghisetti, Claudia, 2017. "Demand-pull and environmental innovations: Estimating the effects of innovative public procurement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 178-187.
    4. Artur Santoalha & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Diversifying in green technologies in European regions: does political support matter?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(2), pages 182-195, February.
    5. Júlio Belo Fernandes & Diana Vareta & Sónia Fernandes & Ana Silva Almeida & Dina Peças & Noélia Ferreira & Liliana Roldão, 2022. "Rehabilitation Workforce Challenges to Implement Person-Centered Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-9, March.
    6. Cheng, Ya & Sinha, Avik & Ghosh, Vinit & Sengupta, Tuhin & Luo, Huawei, 2021. "Carbon Tax and Energy Innovation at Crossroads of Carbon Neutrality: Designing a Sustainable Decarbonization Policy," MPRA Paper 108185, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2021.
    7. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Paglialunga, Elena, 2018. "The employment impact of private and public actions for energy efficiency: Evidence from European industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 250-267.
    8. Shang, Hua & Jiang, Li & Pan, Xianyou & Pan, Xiongfeng, 2022. "Green technology innovation spillover effect and urban eco-efficiency convergence: Evidence from Chinese cities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Gianluca Orsatti & François Perruchas & Davide Consoli & Francesco Quatraro, 2020. "Public Procurement, Local Labor Markets and Green Technological Change. Evidence from US Commuting Zones," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 711-739, April.
    10. Leslier Valenzuela-Fernández & Manuel Escobar-Farfán, 2022. "Zero-Waste Management and Sustainable Consumption: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Mapping Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, December.
    11. Wendler, Tobias & Töbelmann, Daniel & Günther, Jutta, 2021. "Natural resources and technology - on the mitigating effect of green tech," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242416, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    12. Qi, Xiulin & Wu, Zhifang & Xu, Jinqing & Shan, Biaoan, 2023. "Environmental justice and green innovation: A quasi-natural experiment based on the establishment of environmental courts in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    13. Asif Iqbal & Abdullah Yasar & Abdul-Sattar Nizami & Rafia Haider & Faiza Sharif & Imran Ali Sultan & Amtul Bari Tabinda & Aman Anwer Kedwaii & Muhammad Murtaza Chaudhary, 2022. "Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Haulage Modeling Design for Lahore, Pakistan: Transition toward Sustainability and Circular Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-39, December.
    14. Giovanni Vinti & Valerie Bauza & Thomas Clasen & Kate Medlicott & Terry Tudor & Christian Zurbrügg & Mentore Vaccari, 2021. "Municipal Solid Waste Management and Adverse Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-26, April.
    15. Rocsana Bucea-Manea-Țoniș & Oliva Maria Dourado Martins & Dragan Ilic & Mădălina Belous & Radu Bucea-Manea-Țoniș & Cezar Braicu & Violeta-Elena Simion, 2020. "Green and Sustainable Public Procurement—An Instrument for Nudging Consumer Behavior. A Case Study on Romanian Green Public Agriculture across Different Sectors of Activity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, December.
    16. Xiangyan Wang & Jinye Li & Nannan Wang, 2023. "Are Economic Growth Pressures Inhibiting Green Total Factor Productivity Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Taimoor Arif Kiani & Samina Sabir & Unbreen Qayyum & Sohail Anjum, 2023. "Estimating the effect of technological innovations on environmental degradation: empirical evidence from selected ASEAN and SAARC countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6529-6550, July.
    18. Dusko Ursic & Andrej Smogavc Cestar, 2022. "Crisis Management and CSR in Slovenian Companies: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    19. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2021. "Firms’ growth, green gazelles and eco-innovation: evidence from a sample of European firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1721-1738, April.
    20. Tobias Wendler, 2019. "About the Relationship Between Green Technology and Material Usage," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1383-1423, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11180-:d:908793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.